THE WORKMAN'S LIEN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 8672, 12 July 1906, Page 3

THE WORKMAN'S LIEN.

; <, ; AN UttUSUAL POINT. In a caee heard at the Magistrate's Court this morning, & Jieculiar point was brought up in connection with some workmen' 8 claims. The cases were those Of F. Campbell v. Arthur C. Idiens, claim £72: Thomas H. Davies V; A. 0. Idiom, claim £47 7s 6d; and Adam Menzies v. A. C. Idiens, claim £37 10s Id. Mr Russell appeared for each plaintiff, but defendant, was not represented; Mr Russell explained -that this was a claim for goods supplied to defendant, who was a contractor. Plaintiffs were claiming a declaration of lien agains t t certain lands belonging to Idiens. One point in the case was that it was not a claim against an owner of property through a builder, as usually happened, because defendant was the owner, and built his own houfie. But prior to having the work done for him, Idiens mortgaged the land to a person, and counsel conceded that, the lien being protected by the mortgage, plaintiffs had no claim against him. The land had since been sold, and Idiens was, therefore, ..no longer the owner of the land. Mr Russell asked for a lion against the ' land, so that it would' affect any surplus moneys left after the payment of the mortgage debt, interest and charges. Notwithstanding the sale of the land, they had a right to the lien ; and the necessary notices of action had been given. F. Campbell stated that, he was ! employed to do all the plumbing work oh the defendant's house up to June 9. In connection with the other two cases, * evidence wa6 also "given. T. H. Davis, painter, proved having done the work he claimed for. A. Menzies stated that he had done plastering j work as claimed for ; and the regiefcration notice was also proved. Judgment I was given for plaintiffs in each case for I the, amounts claimed, with declaration of lien as aeked for by Mr JRuesell. His Worship said the case was an interesting one, by reason of its unusual conditions, but in case of further proceedings, Mr Russell would be under the obligation of again producing -proofs,